Paradigms
4.5 Study population
169
2012:58). In longitudinal design however, samples are surveyed and (re)surveyed again on at least one additional occasion to assess or describe development or change over time (Bryman 2012:63; Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007:213).
For the present study to be effectively undertaken in the six study sites, the researcher used the survey design. Cross-sectional survey design was applied within the multiple-case (embedded) research design to enable the researcher collect data on a wide range of recordkeeping issues within a shorter period of time, in order to measure and describe the existing digital archiving practices. The survey was carried out by determining the study population, designing, pre-testing and administering questionnaires, carrying out documentary review, conducting interviews and analyzing the collected data. The records and archives management field is not short of success stories on the application of cross-sectional survey designs in MMR such as Laughton (2011), Kalusopa (2011), Luyombya (2010) and Garaba (2010), to mention but a few.
170
University of Nairobi (UoN), Moi University (MU), Kenyatta University (KU), Egerton University (EU), Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT) and Maseno University (MSU). Selection of the cases was not based on a sampling logic, but rather on a replicative logic that enabled making of analytical generalisations as opposed to statistical generalisations.
Within the six universities, the population comprised of six categories of staff cutting across the senior and middle level cadres as follows: the top management comprising of Deputy-vice chancellors in charge of administration and planning, finance officers, legal officers and ICT directors; middle level staff comprising of the university archivists, records managers, records officers, ICT staff and administrative (admin) staff in schools (faculties). Table 4.2 shows the target population for the study which was 451 as well as the relative sizes of the population in each of the case study sites.
Table 4.2: Population distribution of respondents in the six study sites
Name of university
Top
management
Archivists Records manager
Records officers
ICT staff
Admin staff
Total
UoN 7 1 1 28 20 34 91
MU 6 1 1 25 15 30 78
KU 7 1 1 28 15 28 80
EU 5 1 1 18 12 20 57
MSU 6 1 1 15 10 28 61
JKUAT 6 1 1 20 16 40 84
Total 37 6 6 134 88 180 451
Source: UoN (2019), MU (2019), KU (2019), EU (2019), MSU (2019) and JKUAT (2019)
The above statistics were obtained through telephone communication with relevant officers in the human resource departments of the selected universities between 25 February and 12 March 2019. Due to financial and time constraints, it was not feasible to include the entire population in the study, hence the need for sampling.
Below is a brief profile of each of the respondents, outlining their relevance to the present study:
Top management - The top management in Kenyan public universities constitute the senior-most staff who hold grade 14 positions and above. The present study chose to include the following 4 top management categories of staff:
171
i. Deputy vice-chancellor (Finance and planning or equivalent) – S/he heads the financial function in the university on behalf of the Vice-chancellor and responded to questions regarding funding for digital records and archives management, risk management and implementation of a digital archiving framework;
ii. Finance officer – S/he heads the finance department and answers directly to the DVC, finance. The FO was in a position to respond to questions related to funding for digital recordkeeping in the university;
iii. Legal officer – S/he is responsible for all legal matters concerning the university and reports directly to the VC. The legal officers responded to questions on the current state of digital archiving, readiness and risks facing digital archives; and
iv. ICT director – S/he is responsible for technology-related issues in the university and reports directly to the VC. The ICT director responded to all the research questions of this study.
Archivists - The university archivists head the archives departments in the institutions and are responsible for decision making concerning the management of archives and policy related issues. The university archivist responded to all research questions of the study. It is important to note that although the present study focused on archives management, not all universities had an archive and a university archivist.
Records managers - Records managers in universities are charged with the responsibility of overseeing the general recordkeeping function in the universities, including the administration of the registry departments and records units in departments. Their selection for inclusion in the study was because they were believed to be information-rich respondents by virtue of their professional and practical recordkeeping orientation. They responded to all the research questions for this study.
Records officers - Records officers (including records clerks) were selected because of their recordkeeping role and training in records and archives management at bachelors, diploma or certificate levels. They were engaged in the lifecycle management of records from creation to disposition. They were therefore able to
172
respond to questions relating to the practical aspects of recordkeeping in the context of universities.
ICT staff - The category of ICT staff included in this study comprised of database administrators, mainly because they are engaged in the installation, upgrading and general management of database applications. It was assumed that they were directly engaged in the creation, management and disposition of digital records, hence able to inform on key issues surrounding digital archiving in universities.
Administrators - These are administrative staff in universities, specifically senior administrators attached to schools/faculties. They were selected to participate in the study because they are involved in decision making concerning records creation, management and disposal at school/faculty levels. They were therefore key determinants as to the digital archives that were ingested into the archival repositories and were therefore information-rich respondents.